Originally Posted by 2k4EvoVIII

No flame intended sorry if everybody took it that way. Im just putting out the red flap that everything is being monitored. Agian NO FLAME INTENDED!

Originally Posted by ringthree

I agree MSM got F'ed in the A. Does that mean that Mitsu is systematically denying warrenties? No. Do we even know why the pre-emptive restriction was placed? Not really.

Do you really think its more likely that the corporate entity took the time to individually mark his one warrenty for restriction, or perhap someone at the dealer said, hey wait, this guy said he was autocrossing maybe we can screw him?

Originally Posted by Mister2zx3

Nope as usual. Try that reading comprehension class one more time. Naiveness is exactly what I meant, not naivete. naiveness != naivete. Lack of experience and understanding has nothing to do with any limited hoity toity elitist artsy relation in my statement. I wasn't referring to any automotive art or related specific like the concours d'elgance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=naiveness

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=naivete

Originally Posted by 2k4EvoVIII

Hey guys im sorry but umm i just know this forum is being monitored and you guys are just battleing back in forth with mitsu people from what i can see. Too many people are fighting for mitsu that have no clue what they are talking about. Dont get me wrong the local dealership helped me out allot and i thank them for that but the corporate office are a bunch of A** Holes. But i still love my EVO!!!

Originally Posted by WestSideBilly

It doesn't matter why. There is absolutely nothing in the warranty contract that enables the warranter to restrict the warranty without the burden of proof (back to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act). Thus, placing a restriction effectively voiding the warranty (and therefore the contract) prior to the owner of the vehicle even making a claim is a breach of contract. That's *my* issue with this.

I know for a fact Honda employees read the S2000 forums - I've seen logs and IP traces. We're fairly certain that Mitsu employees read this forum. Maybe for amusement, maybe as part of their job (researching the customer?). It's not a great stretch to have someone who reads these forums for the company also spend a few hours googling SCCA clubs and checking the event results for Mitsubishi product owners who are participating.

And again - I'm not sure why you think the dealer would want to harm a customer relation. They want that customer coming back for all their repairs, warranty or not. It makes no business sense for the dealer to damage a customer relation. A couple people sharing really bad experiences with a dealer can dissuade a lot of people from going there - word of mouth is powerful and costly. I'm starting to think you have a serious vendetta against dealerships.

Originally Posted by MSM_S2K

Some entertaining reading this morning!

Turbo, appreciate the paypal offer. There is no need. For me it's not about the money. It is about Mitsu's approach to cost cutting, which seems to be screw the customer. Making Mitsu and dealers aware that as customers we're not going to stand for this BS is what is needed. Glad you were able to get a deal on your RS. Remember, NO racing.

I sent an email to the Mitsu spokesperson (Janis Little) about the disparity in the claims made in the press release, the autoweek article and my situation. I copied Andrew Luu, autoweek writer, on the email. Since it is extremely unlikely that Ms. Little will respond to my questions, I'm hoping to get autoweek or some other magazine to publish this as a letter to the editor. Here is what I sent:

Janis Little

Ms. Little:

I'm puzzled by the disparity between the 18-June-2004 Mitsubishi Press Release, your statements in the 30-June-2004 Autoweek article written by Andrew Luu and the specifics on Mitsubishi's handling of my situation.


My Mitsubishi customer service file number is: 351806.

I'd appreciate your clarifications on the disparity between the following Mitsubishi statements and Mitsubishi's handling of my warranty situation.
- "We give the benefit of the doubt to everyone..."
- "If a Lancer Evolution is brought to Mitsubishi Motors dealer for a diagnosis as to a possible warrantable condition and the dealer determines that modifications were made that may have caused the problem"
- "The dealer and if necessary, MMNA staff, investigate each case, always giving the owner the benefit of the doubt."
- "Adds Mitsubishi’s Little: "You’re not going to get black-flagged just for entering an auto-cross,..."

I expect that "benefit of the doubt" would include at a minimum the "diagnosis" that Mitsubishi claims as part of "investigated each case". So what was done in my case?
- No diagnosis or investigation of the issue whatsoever. If you doubt this, pls feel free to contact the service person from Ken Garff Mitsubishi in Sandy Utah. His name is Todd and his direct phone number is 801 523-5482.
- No one even looked at the car to determine what had failed -- let alone whether it was related to participating in a single SCCA event 2 weeks before.
- I was told by the Mitsubishi District Service Manager that the warranty restriction was put on my Evo on the 16-May, two weeks before the motor failure. Is that true? I have no idea. Either way, I know that no one did any diagnosis or investigation on the failure.


I'd also like a clarification on your statement that "You’re not going to get black-flagged just for entering an auto-cross,..."
- Puzzling statement as that is precisely what happened in my situation


Finally, let's take a look at this statement about the Mitsubishi warranty.
- "Mitsubishi clearly states in its Owner's Warranty and Maintenance booklet that problems or failures related to racing, alteration and/or vehicle modifications are not covered conditions."

The Mitsubishi warranty is explicit that it is problems or failures related to racing that are not covered by warranty. Is the failure of two rods in my Evo weeks after the SCCA event related to racing? A diagnosis would help; some investigation as to whether that is the case would help -- unfortunately no one from Mitsubishi or the dealer even bothered to evaluate the car or even determine what had failed before denying the warranty.

Does the warranty say anywhere that participating in a "racing" event automatically gives Mitsubishi the right to permanently void (warranty restrict) the motor and full drive train? Absolutely not, but again that is precisely what Mitsubishi has done in my case.


Does anyone at Mitsubishi really believe that 6 minutes of autocross -- 10 separate runs through cones in a parking lot of about 55 seconds each in first and second gear -- is the cause of the two rod failures? I don't.

Where there any modifications on my Evo? Nope, not one single modification.

What about other signs of customer abuse? Nope, clutch disk looks fine, brakes look fine and even the tires look fine. Todd from Ken Garff Mitsubishi in Sandy can help with any clarification you’d like here. I also have photographs and will soon have a failure analysis based on an evaluation I’m paying for.


My vehicle was purchased "new" with 179 miles on the odometer. I was assured that no abuse occurred during test drives of my Evo. In hindsight, I was a fool to purchase a new "performance enthusiasts" car with so many miles on it.

Is it likely that the two rod failures are related to test drive or dealer abuse during those 179 initial miles on the car during break in? I think so. I think any reasonable person would accept that it is every bit as likely, if not more likely, than it being related to 6 minutes of autocross in a parking lot after the car has 2700 miles on it.


I look forward to your clarifications on the above.


Regards,
-Michael Miller

Originally Posted by ringthree

You can't think of a reason the dealer would want to harm customer relations? Have you ever been to a dealership?!?!

You are missing the point. YES IT DOES MATTER WHY! If this was a straight case of warrenty denial, I would just post my "Man that sucks, you should go after them" and let it drop.

But that is not what this case is. It is a claim that Mitsu denied the warrenty proactively because of an internet search engine which MSM has no proof of. We dont know why his warrenty was restricted or except what he claims. The claims he makes are pretty damning, and if there were proof would be something major. But there isn't any proof, its all speculation.

All we have learned is that MSM is getting screwed. Fact. I hope that MSM screws Mitsu back.

As I have said about a hundred times now:
Does this prove that there is some kind of internet search engine for autocrossers? No. Does this prove that there is any kind of systematic denial of warranty coverage for autocrossers? No.

Thats what I have been saying from the beginning. I dont feel like repeating to every n00b that wants to jump in with there 2 cents.

Originally Posted by MSM back on page 1

When I asked the dealer why, the response was because of participation in SCCA event. I spent 6+ hours this week on hold and talking with various people at Mitsubishi. This morning I spoke with the District Service Manager for Mitsubishi Motors. He gave me the same answer -- warranty restriction due to participating in the Utah Region SCCA event on 16-May. He even mentioned that he had a copy of the web based time sheet / results with my son's name on it with the car model and color.

Originally Posted by MSM_S2K

Huh!?

Alexe001xe001, Where are the clarifications?

The PR info has been posted and commented on with a fair number of questions raised. How about helping with clarifications on disparity between these direct Mitsu quotes and my situation and those of other Evo owners:
- "We give the benefit of the doubt to everyone..."
- "If a Lancer Evolution is brought to Mitsubishi Motors dealer for a diagnosis as to a possible warrantable condition and the dealer determines that modifications were made that may have caused the problem"
- "The dealer and if necessary, MMNA staff, investigate each case, always giving the owner the benefit of the doubt."
- "Adds Mitsubishi’s Little: "You’re not going to get black-flagged just for entering an auto-cross,..."

I expect that "benefit of the doubt" would include at a minimum the "diagnosis" that Mitsu claims as part of "investigated each case". So what was done in my case? Or in the case of the failure posted by Arc, racerferrari and others? By the way arcs post was just above yours, did you bother to read it before posting the supposed "clarifying" spewage from Mitsu? I can speak with authority for my situation.
- NO diagnosis or investigation of the issue whatsoever
- In my case, I know for a fact and the dealer readily admits that no diagnosis or investigation of the issue was done before the warranty denial. NO one even looked at the car to determine what had failed -- let alone whether it was related to participating in a single SCCA event 2 weeks before.
- I was told that the warranty restriction was put on my Evo on the 16-May, two weeks BEFORE the motor failure. Is that true or is it more BS from Mitsu. I have no idea. Either way, I know that no one did any diagnosis or investigation on the failure. PERIOD.

How about clarification on Mitsu's spokespersons (Ms. Little) statement that "You’re not going to get black-flagged just for entering an auto-cross,..."
- What a bold face lie. That is PRECISELY what happened in my situation and no one at Mitsu denies it. Maybe someone from Mitsu would like to comment in this thread? Not likely, but I wish they would or at least answer the phone and speak with me about it.
- The Autoweek article makes my situation fairly clear and Mitsu completely ignores it. I wish the writer would have forced Mitsu to comment on these disparities.

Finally, let's take a look at this "clarifying" statement about warranty.
- "Mitsubishi clearly states in its Owner's Warranty and Maintenance booklet that problems or failures related to racing, alteration and/or vehicle modifications are not covered conditions."

First issue is what constitutes racing? The link above about the Mazda case and the earlier posts about State Farm's definition of racing that explicitly excludes SCCA/autocross events from their definition of racing makes it very clear that other companies disagree as to whether autocross = racing. It's a matter of interpretation that warrants clarification on the part of the warranty provider.
I did NOT consider SCCA Solo2 as fitting what I assumed was racing per the Mitsu warranty. I even received clarification from the dealer on this. Yeah, yeah ... I know ... I should have got it in writing ... I'm an idiot and a bit naive.

Second issue is that the warranty is explicit that it is problems or failures related to racing that are not covered by warranty. Is the failure of two rods in my Evo weeks after the SCCA event related to racing? A diagnosis would help, some investigation as to whether that is the case would help ... unfortunately NO ONE from Mitsu or the dealer even bothered to evaluate the car or even determine what had failed before denying the warranty.

Does the warranty say anywhere that participating in one "racing" event automatically gives Mitsu the right to permenently void (warranty restrict) the motor and full drivetrain? Absolutely not, but again that is precisely what Mitsu has done in my case.

Does anyone reading this thread really believe that 6 minutes of autocross -- 10 separate runs through the cones of about 55 seconds each in first and second gear -- is the cause of the two rod failures? I don't.

Where there any modifications on my Evo? Nope, not one single mod ... zip, nadda, nothing.

What about other signs of customer abuse? Nope, clutch disk looks fine, brakes look fine ... even the tires look fine.

I'd appreciate clarifications. You're post provides none. Don't link to the blantant spewage from Mitsu claiming that there is any clarification there. There is not.


MaxR, thanks for your post. You're right, I could lie. I'm not going to do that.

Arc, sorry to hear about your turbo. Mitsu is clearly taking the position of denying any significant claim. Their attitude seems to be ... ***** the customer ... and good luck Mr. or Ms. customer navigating the bureacracy and the arbitration process.

-Michael

Originally Posted by alexe001xe001

I think you should get a lawyer and sue Mitsu.
It seem that you have a case.
good luck